Pro-Immigration German Mayor stabbed in politically-motivated attack

As divisive as immigration politics are here Stateside, the immigration situation in Europe represents an existential crisis. In the UK, Labor MP Jo Cox was stabbed and shot by a “Britain First” nationalist. It happened again this week, when a pro-immigrant German mayor was stabbed in a kebab-shop in the town of Altena.

From Express.co.uk:

Mr Abdullah said the drunken attacker had been complaining about immigration policy before drawing a foot-long knife and lunging at Mr Holstein.

The owner said: “The mayor came in and ordered a kebab. This guy went up to him a few minutes later and asked if he was the mayor.

“He complained he was hungry and thirsty and said Hollstein was letting too many foreigners into Altena.

“He was very drunk. Then he pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the neck.”

The knifeman has not been named under local privacy laws, but he is believed to be a German citizen.

Violence does not belong in politics. It is wrong when perpetrated by the left, and when it is perpetrated by the right. I might not agree with Mr. Holtsein’s immigration position, but the remedy lies in civil action, not attempted assassination.

 


Related:

 

 

 

comments

  1. ButtHurtz says:

    Good thing our founding fathers did not agree with your sissy thinking.

    1. Assasination is not a broad based movement of civil action. It accomplished nothing constructive

    2. Tyrannicide, while a morally defensible act, is not relevant here. Killing a small town mayor because you disagree with his political position is murder.

  2. ButtHurtz says:

    Violence, right/wrong or indifferent has accomplished more in politics than any other factor.

    To think otherwise is being foolish but maybe politically correct.

    1. I am not denying the role violence has played in history. I am saying that to condone violence on an individual level is anathema to a representative democratic system.

  3. ButtHurtz says:

    I’d suggest accepting rampent immigration, without fighting back, is a guaranteed civil system failure.

    1. I didn’t say accept unfettered immigration. My issue is with individual citizens taking it upon themselves to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

      If we condone such acts, what are we fighting to save?

  4. ButtHurtz says:

    As in most things in life, it’s not that simple.

    As an example; I’ll be all three (judge,jury,executioner) when defending my family.

    The issue of immagration can easily be broken down into defense of family. Hence, violent actions can be justified.

    1. You have an absolute and natural right to violent defensive action to protect yourself and others from imminent and tangible threat.

      While I agree that the European immigration crisis is indeed existential, that is a highly abstract concept that isn’t going to wash legally.

      One is a response to an action perpetrated upon you. The other is a premeditated action performed by you. Big difference.

  5. ButtHurtz says:

    The only difference between right and wrong is how many.

    If enough people resort to violence and effect a change, they will go down in history as right.

    Same concept applies to “legally”. Enough people fight (and win), it will be legal.

    1. Let it go. You are never going to convince me that offing politicians is a good thing for Democracy – no how much they may or may not “deserve” it.

  6. ButtHurtz says:

    I am not trying to convince you of anything. History already shows that your non violence premise is inaccurate.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pro-Immigration German Mayor stabbed in politically-motivated attack

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email